Don Quixote Nader (Plus 2)

Filed under: 2008 elections, Feature — Jason, Managing Editor on January 31, 2008 @ 6:00 pm CET

Perennial leftist gadfly Ralph Nader is preparing to tilt at yet another windmill with another presidential run. Added to the prospects of third-party challenges by well-funded pseudo-libertarian R0n Paul and/or self-funded moderate Michael Bloomberg, this presents the possibility of an outright circus in the 2008 general election that may eclipse even the carnival atmosphere of the primaries.

The increasing pervasiveness of the Internet and the closely divided playing field between the major parties may be what is causing the increasing prominence of fringe candidates. The rise of the Internet allows formerly isolated cranks, malcontents, and members of tin-foil-hat brigades to come together into passionate brigades of slogan-spouting ideologues (which readers of comment sections have come to know all too well). And the tight division between the major parties offers the possibility that even marginal candidates might be able to play spoiler, exaggerating their true influence and taking vengeance upon major parties that their supporters see as corrupt and self-serving.

2008 may be shaping up to be a mess than makes 2000 look like a political blip.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.

1 Michael van der Galien

January 31, 2008 @ 6:33 pm CET

I don’t agree with Nader on a lot of issues, but I do respect the man. All his life he has served people. He has, whether you like it or not, made a big difference from, say, 1960-1985.

I don’t agree with him, but he stands for his beliefs.

2 redfish

February 1, 2008 @ 1:53 am CET

Nader is well more liberal than me, but a lot of the issues he raises and other third party candidates raise can be important. Bloomberg also wouldn’t be ‘fringe’ if he ran.

Also, no matter what you say about Nader’s chances of winning, at least being in the race can help him set up challenges to ballot access and debate inclusion; and could help set up the viability of third party runs in the future, by more mainstream candidates who aren’t billionaires

3 redfish

February 6, 2008 @ 7:56 pm CET

McCains success may be upsetting Bloomberg’s presidential plans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020202076.html

4 Ed

February 24, 2008 @ 7:59 pm CET

He also made a big difference in 2000. In fact, I think he made a huge difference in the lives of thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers. Granted, not a positive difference… I think Ralph Nader should retroactively be named man of the year for 2000. He could join such august figures as Hitler, Stalin, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Putin.

Bush stands for his beliefs too. So did all the aforementioned people. I submit that merely standing by your beliefs is a piss-poor reason to like somebody.